Khushi Gupta
Published on: April 29, 2022 at 12:50 IST
The Supreme Court reserved its Order on the Centre’s Plea that the matter related to its dispute with the Delhi Government over control of Administrative services in the National Capital Territory should be referred to a Five-Judge Constitution Bench.
A Three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India N V Ramana and Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli told the two sides that if it decides to refer the matter to a Constitution bench, they should conclude the arguments by May 15, so the Judges can utilise the recess to work on the Judgment.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that though a Five-Judge Constitution Bench had looked at Article 239AA in July 2018, it did not interpret the expression ‘insofar as any such matter as applicable to Union Territories’ appearing in the Article.
A decision on the substantial question of law by a Constitution Bench is necessary to decide the individual issues before the Court, the Centre said.
Stating that a Constitution Bench had already interpreted Article 239AA in its July 2018 Judgment, Senior Advocate Abhishek M Singhvi opposed the demand.
“Existence of a substantial question of law does not weigh on the stakes of the Case. Here there is a Constitution Bench Judgment already,” said Singhvi.